Delay strategy getting boost from Obama?

posted at 12:01 pm on August 13, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The series of retreats by the Obama administration on ObamaCare continues this week with the delay of the out-of-pocket caps on insurers, noted earlier today. Once again, the White House has chosen businesses over consumers and workers, in large part driven by the economic implications of the law it champions. So far, the White House refuses to budge on the individual mandate, even though the exchanges won’t be able to verify income levels to prevent fraudulent subsidy requests, nor secure the personal data needed for submission in the exchanges, putting consumers at risk for identity theft.

Republicans on Capitol Hill are debating the best strategy to oppose ObamaCare, with Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz arguing for a showdown on defunding everything. Rubio continued to push that line today at a media availability in Gainesville, transcribed by his office:

“The President himself has already admitted that a significant portion of the law isn’t working, and that’s why he’s delayed portions of it for a year. That’s why the administration has given all kinds of waivers to allies of the administration through its regulatory system. At the same time, I don’t think he can ignore that he has strong allies of his who supported him in his campaign, who are asking him to delay and repeal significant portions of the bill.

“Look when the Teamsters union, not exactly a bastion of pro-conservative Republicanism, when the Teamsters union is issuing letters saying this law is breaking its promises and undermining the 40 hour work week, I just don’t know how he can ignore that. And all I would say is, let’s take a time-out here. Let’s not fund this thing. Let’s suspend this thing at a minimum. I would like to see it repealed, but at a minimum let’s suspend it. But let’s use this short term budget as a way to keep the government open, fund the government moving forward, but not fund this law that is hurting real people in such dramatic ways.”

Unfortunately, this is a losing strategy for a couple of reasons. Democrats are simply not going to agree to separate ObamaCare funding from the rest of the budget, nor do they need to do so in the Senate. They have the votes to pass a budget or a CR without Rubio or any of the rest of the Republicans, since filibusters cannot apply to budgetary bills according to Senate rules. Rubio’s remarks are aimed more at the House, and both he and Cruz want to draw a line in the sand that will lead to a shutdown when Senate Democrats refuse to adopt any bills defunding ObamaCare.

Ramesh Ponnuru reminds us of how well a shutdown played in the past for Republicans:

Democrats thought that they had won the battle over the shutdowns, and that the agreement to end them was a Republican surrender. Clinton made a point, in his next State of the Union address, to criticize Republicans for their strategy. It was an applause line. Clinton’s job-approval numbers started to rise as soon as the shutdown fight was over, and they never really sank again.

Republicans thought they had lost, too. A minority of them thought that they should have kept the government shuttered longer, and that Gingrich and Senate Republican leader Bob Dolehad caved. (Gingrich was widely reported at the time to have told unhappy colleagues, “I melt when I’m around him,” referring to Clinton.) Most of them decided that bringing on a shutdown at all was a mistake.

It’s true, as Gingrich now says, that Republicans lost only a few House seats in the next election. But it’s also true that the shutdowns ended what had been called the “Republican revolution” of the mid-1990s. Before the shutdowns, the Republicans had talked about eliminating four cabinet departments. Afterward, they quit.

The view that Republicans had been routed was so widely accepted that some of them proposed legislation to prevent a shutdown from ever taking place again. The idea was that if no budget were enacted, the government would just keep going on the previous year’s funding levels. The legislation never went anywhere because Democrats thought the possibility of a repeat performance of the 1995-96 shutdowns gave them leverage.

Gingrich himself accepted the conventional wisdom that his party had lost. That’s what associates of his told me (among others) at the time, and that’s how they recollect it now. The “balanced budget deal” of 1997 included the creation of a new health-care entitlement for children, something the Republicans of 1995 would never have accepted but the post-shutdown Republicans were too beat down to resist. The conservative end of the party hated the deal.

The better opportunity here is to push a full-spectrum delay on ObamaCare. One essential element of jujitsu is using an opponent’s strength and energy against him as a means of defeat. Taking on Democrats on the entire federal budget doesn’t focus the energy clearly enough on the damage being done by ObamaCare’s delays and waivers. Instead of playing a game of chicken that Republicans can’t win, the GOP should use the delays and waivers to press Obama and Democrats to stop favoring insurers and employers, and to give regular Americans the same breaks Obama wants to give everyone else in the equation, as I argue in my column for The Week:

This brings us back to McConnell. He signaled this week that he will pursue the alternate strategy of demanding delays in the key mandates of the ACA rather than defunding it. After Obama unilaterally postponed enforcing the statutory deadline for the employer mandate, Republicans have argued that the individual mandate should also be delayed. The Washington Post‘s Jennifer Rubin reported on McConnell’s demand to the CMS administrator for a delay, based on the inability of the selected contractor to ensure data security in the exchanges on time for the ACA’s October 1 rollout. “[J]ust last year,” McConnell wrote, “it was disclosed that more than 120,000 enrollees in the federal Thrift Savings Plan had their personal information, including Social Security numbers, stolen from your contractor’s computers in 2011.” McConnell closed with an argument for delay that will be powerful to contradict:

“Americans should not be forced into the exchanges, and certainly not without these assurances. If you rush to go forward without adequate safeguards in place, any theft of personal information from constituents will be the result of your rush to implement a law to meet the agency’s political needs and not the operational needs of the people it is supposed to serve.”

The delay provides much better fighting ground for Republicans. First, it doesn’t hold up the rest of the budget over the latest pitched battle over ObamaCare. After three years of “cliffs,” Americans have tired of budget brinksmanship, and even in last year’s election didn’t do much for Republican electoral efforts when fought over broader issues of budget deficits, tax rates, and national debt. Second, a delay in the exchanges also means a delay in the payment of subsidies, which for the moment will be paid on the honor system, since the delayed employer mandate and a lack of coordination between the IRS and HHS makes it impossible to check income levels for 2014.

Finally, if the Republicans can’t win a delay even with the exchanges wide open to fraud and identity theft, they certainly won’t be able to win a budget showdown with Democrats over opposition to the whole ObamaCare package. But that may not be the worst outcome, either, especially if the rollout even comes close to the disaster that Republicans predict. Any disaster will help Republicans build support for later efforts to dismantle ObamaCare, and will prove most helpful in 2014. Instead of trying to defend a government shutdown that they can’t win, Republicans can instead remind voters that they tried to delay and amend the ACA. That could give Republicans a lot more leverage in the next session of Congress by taking control of both chambers and forcing Obama to defend a train wreck.

I wrote this before the latest delay from the White House became widely known. The ground is even better for this strategy than it was 24 hours ago. Force Democrats to either pass a delay on the individual mandates — which would also suspend the exchanges and subsidies — or to defend imposing a mandate on them while giving businesses and insurers a one-year holiday from their obligations under ObamaCare. Rather than creating a budget cliff that Republicans can’t win, this strategy gives them a fight they can’t lose. Let’s see which strategy House Republicans take.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Good advice, hang it on them and make it the issue of 2014 and 2016 the pain and misery Obama has inflicted on americans. By the way, that means no GOP governor who accepted the medicaid expansion be allowed anywhere near the nomination.

No matter what the Pubs ‘agree’ on doing within their ranks, it’ll either be the wrong thing to do or they’ll cave if it might be effective. Other Pubs like McCain will never go along with anything unless it benefits themselves, their friends who give them money (read: own them), and their Democrat ‘friends across the aisle’.

Makes me wish I had the kind of money to be able buy or rent my own politician.

Evidently, you can add “asylum” to the equation. Seems that somebody figured out Barry’s admin has a soft touch with asylum seekers from across our southern border attempting to escape the drug war in Mexico and the fad has really been catching on as if someone in Barry’s circle’s been advertising that Barry is a soft touch and has a deep wallet.

all you get from the talking MSM heads is “the GOP has no alternative”—that is the only arrow left in their quiver. Perhaps a quick House bill with a “catchy name” that is substantive in nature and updates the 2009 GOP “alternative”, HR 3400, would be prudent….

Instead of playing a game of chicken that Republicans can’t win, the GOP should use the delays and waivers to press Obama and Democrats to stop favoring insurers and employers, and to give regular Americans the same breaks Obama wants to give everyone else

Why in the heck would that work? Why don’t they use their oversight obligations to make this guy either implement the law so it can fail miserably or deem that the “law” is null and void if not fully implemented?

Ramesh Ponnuru reminds us of how well a shutdown played in the past for Republicans

It isn’t relevant. A 28 day shutdown in 1995/96 over continuing resolutions, IMO, is a far different set of circumstances than the current battle.

In other words, those who argue against a possible shutdown over the defunding of all aspects of Obamacare. OBAMACARE IS BAD PUBLIC POLICY. I repeat. OBAMACARE IS BAD PUBLIC POLICY. Everybody knows it but the Demonrats can’t admit it so they pretend that they just need more time by piecemeal delays without effecting change to any of the substantive flaws of Obamacare which are among the biggest promises made to the parasite class (no pre-existing conditions, lower premiums, cap on out-of-pocket expenses, ability to keep plan/doctor, etc.)

I’d rather be playing the GOP hand right now than the Demonrat hand. And I wish the pundit class making this situation into a repeat of the FY96 budget battles would STFU and recognize that they are fighting an old war.

I agree with you, Ed. In fact, I have always thought this was the GOP’s best strategy for this session. Like you, I feel that the climate continues to get better for it as well.

However, it’s also always been my feeling that the GOP knows this, and the blustering about defunding is just that, bluster. They can harp on that for weeks and months, and then reluctantly agree to a compromise which delays whatever significant parts of the program still haven’t been delayed.

Next step: Repeat the process when the GOP controls the Senate, forcing Obama to get out his veto pen and be the bad guy.

Basically – here is the Strategy of Ed and The Other Establishment Republicans:

“If I go to battle – the enemy might shoot me. If the enemy shoots me, it could kill me. WAIT! I have an Idea! If I just shoot myself in a way that DOESN’T KILL ME, then The Enemy NEVER gets to “shoot to kill” me – and I WIN!! Now – I going to turn the barrel of my gun to aim towards my groin – and run out on to the battlefield bellowing a battle cry – JUST before I SHOOT MYSELF and WIN THE BATTLE!!”

No, we stand and fight. Whenever, wherever, however. We pursue all strategies. Pass the government funding minus Obamacare and make the Senate Dems vote for it.

Sure, the Senate will fund it and send it back to the House, from there it gets tricky and it’s purely messaging at this point. I still think instead of potentially being blamed for the shutdown the Dems or the One will instead push for a year delay, which is preferable to nothing controlling only one house of one branch. But we should NOT unilaterally surrender a path of attack.

At the same time, pursue all other avenues. Ed, you mentioned this other strategy when you poo-poo’d the defund tactic, but doesn’t it also suffer the same Senate issue? So, you might want to surrender but I sure as hell don’t.

We need to fight. The Republicans have no spine and finally when we have some willing to do what is needed some Republican actively work to thwart them. That’s pure bull!

Which is the morally right thing to do? Defund Obamacare or delay implementation of more key provisions?

I’m on the side of those who advocate defunding. They may not win but they are fighting the battle that should be fought and not seeking common ground with those seeking to destroy America’s health system so that single payer can rise from the ashes of what once was 1/6th of the American economy.

I don’t agree with those pushing to just let the system crash on its own because, IMO, inaction on the part of opponents is tantamount to supporting Obamacare. Dems plan on running on Obamacare successes next year (they have no choice) the time for a showdown over this BAD PUBLIC POLICY is now, not after the next election cycle.

The republicans clearly won the last gov’t shutdown, and history proves it.
The republicans gained a majority in the senate, maintained their majority in the house, and forced Bill Clinton to sign balanced budgets for the remainder of his term as president.
I dont know where the BS, that republicans lost the shutdown started, but it is clearly at odds with historical facts.

The 1995 shutdown was unpopular, but the Republicans did gain from it. Rush outlined several things (I can’t find all he said) but one of those was Clinton had to finally give in on welfare reform. He held dogged the first two times, but on the third try he signed the bill.

There really was no ‘shutdown’ back then in a meaningful way, and there won’t be this time. Social Security checks still went out, people still got their food stamps and welfare checks, and government workers still got paid. There was no harm done, like the sequester did nothing except trigger Obama to do spiteful things like end White House tours for everyone including schoolchildren who had been planning on a tour for months.

I think it was mostly media hype and media-generated fanning of flames. If there is another shutdown, I don’t think anyone will notice except for the media making it the news of hour, every hour, for six weeks after the funds are restored.

The republicans clearly won the last gov’t shutdown, and history proves it.
The republicans gained a majority in the senate, maintained their majority in the house, and forced Bill Clinton to sign balanced budgets for the remainder of his term as president.
I dont know where the BS, that republicans lost the shutdown started, but it is clearly at odds with historical facts.

I think it was mostly media hype and media-generated fanning of flames. If there is another shutdown, I don’t think anyone will notice except for the media making it the news of hour, every hour, for six weeks after the funds are restored.

Liam on August 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM

I tend to agree. Which is why I’m disgusted with the Vichy Republicans who don’t even want to fight Obamacare right now through the budgetary process. As I posted above. No matter what you believe about healthcare reform, the ACA is bad public policy. McConnell is right that the exchange databases are so badly behind schedule there is no guarantee that PII data will be secure- and there is nothing more personal than the kind of data that is contained in a healthcare database. The IRS, chief enforcement agency, has clearly been operating in a partisan way that discredits their role in the ACA.

Again, this isn’t about supporting or opposing the rat-eared wonder. It isn’t saying that the current system isn’t in need of some reform. This is about taking the time to do it right, which means IMO, starting over on key aspects of Obamacare.

Get used to it folks. If ObamaCare isn’t killed stone dead soon it will be permanent just like every other entitlement. It will last until it completely collapses (which I guess isn’t all that far off).

Which is the morally right thing to do? Defund Obamacare or delay implementation of more key provisions?

Happy Nomad on August 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM

My vote? Delay until you’re stronger. Take the Senate in 2014. Then put more teeth in your delays. Force Obama to take a stand that virtually no one agrees with.

Then, when you get as much as you can get of the meaty parts delayed until 2017, you put someone in the White House who will sign the repeal. This candidate should tell GOP leadership in both Houses that Congress opens session on January 2, which gives them 19 days to get a repeal bill on his desk to be signed on January 21.

That’s how I’d play it.

Don’t get me wrong. I like the idea of defunding it. And I think the GOP should keep pushing it publicly. I just don’t think it has any realistic chance of success, so the GOP needs a plan B. I think defund should be their public plan A, and what Ed mentions should be their quiet-behind-the-scenes plan B.

Get used to it folks. If ObamaCare isn’t killed stone dead soon it will be permanent just like every other entitlement. It will last until it completely collapses (which I guess isn’t all that far off).

gwelf on August 13, 2013 at 12:47 PM

And see, I think that’s the pessimistic viewpoint. This is an unpopular law. It’s never going to be popular. All indications are that it will likely become increasingly unpopular. I think history and CW don’t apply here.

This law can be repealed. It can be repealed in 2017. Hell, I think it can be repealed in 2021. We missed our chance for the short game last year. Now we need to play the long game.

Again, this isn’t about supporting or opposing the rat-eared wonder. It isn’t saying that the current system isn’t in need of some reform. This is about taking the time to do it right, which means IMO, starting over on key aspects of Obamacare.

Happy Nomad on August 13, 2013 at 12:44 PM

I blame Congressional Democrats for this looming disaster more than I blame Obama. They simply stoked his ego and attached his name to it. Of course he would have signed it anyway, but I think he goes by talking points issued him instead of him actually having a hand in the crafting of the final law. Those pages were written over a long time, going back almost thirty years.

I would be more forgiving if the original desire was to do right by Americans. But that isn’t and was never the intent. Now, with a suicidal Republican Party, we’re stuck.

To paraphrase a theme on Rush today…..This is about keeping the illusion of the Obamacare promises alive until after the 2014 elections.

There is nothing in these delays that have to do with the functional launch of Obamacare. It is because too many voters are going to be gouged to pay for all the stuff promised to the parasite class for “free.” Young people will be expected to sign up and pay small fortunes in order to pay for old people. Families will have less disposible income due to higher premiums. Businesses will not hire additional workers. The workforce will fundamentally be part-timers expected to find their own health insurance. None of this bodes well for Demonrats if they can’t roll it out incrementally so that voter outrage can be contained.

I wish as much attention was being given to the defects of the delay strategy as is being given to the alleged defects of the defund strategy.

Rather than creating a budget cliff that Republicans can’t win, this strategy gives them a fight they can’t lose.

What is the point of all these delays, except to make it easier for Democrats to avoid and ignore the disaster that is Obamacare during the 2014 election?

Critics of the defund strategy like to say that’s a PR campaign the Republicans can’t win. Yet magically, we’re supposed to believe that they can win a PR campaign — on all the bad things that are going to happen a year from now!

While we insulate them from the deleterious effects of Obamacare, Republicans will supposedly be able to persuade independents and low-information voters, “Boy, howdy, are you guys going to be sorry a year from now!” While the administration is arguing that Republicans are wrong, once fully implemented everything will be fine. Yep…it’s obvious to me Republicans can’t lose that…

all the while the exchanges are growing…all the while Obamacare is becoming more embedded in the bureaucracy

But there’s no chance Republicans can win a PR campaign explaining that it’s not s shutdown, we’re just trying to get rid of that thing that’s making you right now lose your full time jobs, pay more out of pocket, losing your preferred insurance and doctor…

yep, Republicans are smart enough to capitalize on delay but not on defund…I’ve yet to hear a plausible explanation for this asymmetry…other than simply reasserting the original claim.

I would be more forgiving if the original desire was to do right by Americans. But that isn’t and was never the intent. Now, with a suicidal Republican Party, we’re stuck.

Liam on August 13, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Yeah, The books were cooked so that six years of Obamacare were paid for over ten years in order to come up with a more “affordable” price tag. Key aspects were timed so that Dems could be heroes ahead of the 2012 election (why the huge premium hikes are only happening in January). The original plan was to roll it out, get the whining done with, and claim success in 2014. The strategy clearly has changed to defer outrage until after November 2014.

If the GOP listens to the Rovians instead of going for the jugular in the upcoming weeks, they have missed a huge opportunity.

They have the votes to pass a budget or a CR without Rubio or any of the rest of the Republicans, since filibusters cannot apply to budgetary bills according to Senate rules.

The only thing Senate Democrats can pass is whatever the House sends them, or am I missing something? Nothing Republicans are doing is working. The soldiers and justice department will get paid. I don’t care about the rest of them. Let the Democrats shut down the government. It’s time for a show down.

And see, I think that’s the pessimistic viewpoint. This is an unpopular law. It’s never going to be popular. All indications are that it will likely become increasingly unpopular. I think history and CW don’t apply here.

This law can be repealed. It can be repealed in 2017. Hell, I think it can be repealed in 2021. We missed our chance for the short game last year. Now we need to play the long game.

Chris of Rights on August 13, 2013 at 12:50 PM

How long has the GOP been strategizing on how to end the Dept of Education?

Ok, so ObamaCare won’t be as popular as the Dept of Education and will have more obvious adverse affects on people so it will be much easier to repeal or defund later? Maybe I am being pessimistic but there will be portions of ObamaCare that people will like – the “subsidies” etc. As ObamaCare becomes increasingly unpopular you’re going to hear more and more Democrats distance themselves from it and move towards single payer as the real solution. In several years the GOP will be blamed for ObamaCare: ObamaCare is the GOP’s fault because they made the liberals compromise on single payer. Efforts to eliminate ObamaCare will be called callous disregard for the poor and middle class by the media/liberals.

So, the delay (of the individual mandate) strategy will disproportionately protect Obama voters from the deleterious effects of Obamacare through the 2014 election.

Assuming I understand…how is this supposed to help Republicans in 2014?

EastofEden on August 13, 2013 at 1:11 PM

THIS Eleventy!!!!!
No consequences for stupid legislating equals no repeal of stupid legislation.
Of course, our superiors in Washington, know that they can tweak this stupid law til the cows come home and they will always have a job and K street cash.

As ObamaCare becomes increasingly unpopular you’re going to hear more and more Democrats distance themselves from it and move towards single payer as the real solution. In several years the GOP will be blamed for ObamaCare: ObamaCare is the GOP’s fault because they made the liberals compromise on single payer. Efforts to eliminate ObamaCare will be called callous disregard for the poor and middle class by the media/liberals.

gwelf on August 13, 2013 at 1:00 PM

I think the GOP can win this battle, but I admit that your argument is not without merit. Why do I think the GOP can win (admittedly, I’m assuming more cojones than our current GOP leadership has shown)?

All the GOP has to do is proclaim very loudly that this isn’t their fault. They didn’t make the liberals compromise. Obamacare passed without a single GOP vote. The Dems own this, and the GOP should shout from the largest megaphone, “Ok, we tried it your way, and it failed. Now get out of the way, and let us try to fix this mess you made. No thank you. We don’t need your help. You’ve done quite enough already.”

In short, blame everything on the Dems. If anybody complains of toothache, blame it on the Dems. The Dems own this debacle and they don’t get the right to say, “well, this is a failure. we’re going to have to have more government involvement now.” The answer is simple, “It seems pretty obvious that government involvement got us where we are now. So, sit down, shut up, and let the adults work on this.”

Assuming I understand…how is this supposed to help Republicans in 2014?

EastofEden on August 13, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Are we trying to help Republicans in 2014 or save America from this debacle? The two are not necessarily synonymous. I’m for doing whatever is realistic to achieve the latter. If the Republican benefit from that, fine. If they don’t, I don’t care.

Non essential services shut down every weekend and no one notices. The military still gets paid, SS checked are still sent out etc. when I hear republicans repeat the lie that our troops won get paid or that grandma won’t get her SS check I have to wonder if these republicans really believe this crap or if they’re actively working against us.

Why in the heck would that work? Why don’t they use their oversight obligations to make this guy either implement the law so it can fail miserably or deem that the “law” is null and void if not fully implemented?

Vince on August 13, 2013 at 12:11 PM

I’m with you. Tell them to implement in full or rescind the entire law. They wanted to cram it down our throats with “Deem and Pass”, reconciliation, Roberts’ “tax” and other BS moves why change course now? Go ahead and cram all the provisions down just like you wanted it or get rid of it!

…as an aside: Did the SCOTUS also get an Obamacare exemption like Congress? Hope not – I would love to see Roberts stuck with it.

Like I said in the past, do not give Obama anything he asks for. The employer mandate will stay in place and everything Obama and his legal team defended at the Supreme Court. Unless, they want to retry the case in the Supreme Court, based on Obama’s actions toward Congress.

The simple question is, what delays will help the Dems in 2014? The answer is every delay being implemented. A delay of the mandate is coming imo.

A GOP sponsored delay seems to play into the Dems hands…jujitsu used against the GOP. It allows them to run on the myths of the ACA while delaying its implementation disaster. It also adds ownership to the ACA by the GOP who vote to delay it by working with it.

Can the GOP force a vote on full implementation or repeal? Probably not. Maybe a lawsuit could force this? Sue to repeal the law (political cover) due to illegal delays by Obama….the resulting ruling would likely force implementation by a judge while the party in the suit was trying to repeal. Obama will undoubtedly fight the suit and be blamed for the result. Who has the cajones to try this?

Once the money is paid out on the ACA in January it’s an entitlement that will never be repealed.

I don’t know if I believe the delay idea would get a boost from Obama, but the thing that might be happening is the media coverage connects the idea for the first time with the MSM viewing audience who has never heard of it, because of the conservative news blackout policies they use to negate what we and our representatives say.

So, Obama will return to saying that Republicans want to Shut Down the government, because it tells his audience all they need to know.

The only conservatives at HotAir are those of us who comment. The ladies are the closest to conservatives. Ed is the ultimate squishy Establishment Republican, always wearing white undies in case he loses his surrender flag. AP is the last of the Rockefeller Republicans. If Jazz Shaw becomes a little more conservative, he might be mistaken for a Huntsman Republican.

Fine, do it your way and Karl Rove’s way, but that way is not a winner either. What it does do is give the people who advocate it a way to continue to run as being against Obamacare. Nope, Lee, Cruz, et al., should put their bill up for a vote in order to reveal the representatives who are really against Obamacare and those who only want the issue to run on. Am I right, Karl Rove?